Advertisement

Case: Can TRIZ Functional Analysis Improve FMEA?

  • Christian Spreafico
  • Davide RussoEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Spreafico and Russo propose a new approach to Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) in order to speed up its application and increase efficiency.

Behind this method, a detailed survey covering more than 150 journal papers and 109 patents between 1978 and 2017 was conducted in order to identify the main open problems. To overcome these limits, the authors (1) reverse the order of execution of the FMEA phases to focus on the most critical areas of intervention, (2) introduce a more rigorous FMEA ontology to reduce user’s subjectivity, and finally (3) integrate several TRIZ tools to improve problem-solving tasks.

In particular, an unedited version of TRIZ functional analysis, called “Perturbed functional analysis,” and an evolution of TRIZ Multiscreen tool, called “Film maker,” have been proposed in order to improve Failure Modes, Causes and Effects investigation.

An exemplary industrial application of vacuum cleaner along with a test are reported.

References

  1. Annamalai, N., & Muthukarapan, S. (2010). Lean in burn-in preventive maintenance through TRIZ process analysis. Proceedings of the 10th ETRIA world TRIZ future conference: TRIZ future conference 2010, Bergamo.Google Scholar
  2. Augustine, M., Yadav, O. P., Jain, R., & Rathore, A. P. (2011, January). An approach to capture system interaction failures of a complex system. Proceedings of IEEE reliability and maintainability symposium (RAMS), Orlando.Google Scholar
  3. Byrne, D. M., & Taguchi, S. (1987). Taguchi approach to parameter design. Quality Progress, 20, 19–26.Google Scholar
  4. Denson, B., Tang, S. Y., Gerber, K., & Blaignan, V. (2014, January). An effective and systematic design FMEA approach. Proceedings of IEEE reliability and maintainability symposium (RAMS), Colorado Springs, CO, USA.Google Scholar
  5. Dobrusskin, C. (2016). On the identification of contradictions using cause effect chain analysis. Procedia CIRP, 39, 221–224. Amsterdam: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Kaplan, S., Zlotin, B., Zusman, A., & Visnepolschi, S. (1999). New tools for failure and risk analysis: An introduction to anticipatory failure determination (AFD) and the theory of scenario structuring. Farmington Hills: Ideation International Inc.Google Scholar
  7. Kara-Zaitri, C., Keller, A. Z., Barody, I., & Fleming, P. V. (1991, January). An improved FMEA methodology. Proceedings of IEEE reliability and maintainability symposium (pp. 248–252). Orlando, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  8. Kmenta, S., & Ishii, K. (2000, September). Scenario-based FMEA: A life cycle cost perspective. Proceedings of ASME design engineering technical conference, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  9. Koltze, K., & Souchkov, V. (2011). Systematische Innovation: TRIZ-Anwendung in der Produkt-und Prozessentwicklung. Munich: Carl Hanser Verlag GmbH Co KG.Google Scholar
  10. Liu, et al. (2002). Failure modes and effects analysis with Bayesian belief networks: Bridging the design-diagnosis modeling gap. Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  11. Liu, H.-C., Liu, L., & Liu, N. (2013). Risk evaluation approaches in failure mode and effects analysis: A literature review. Expert Systems with Applications, 40, 828–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mader, R., Armengaud, E., Grießnig, G., Kreiner, C., Steger, C., & Weiß, R. (2013). OASIS: An automotive analysis and safety engineering instrument. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 120, 150–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mann, D. (2002). Evolving the inventive principles. The TRIZ Journal.Google Scholar
  14. Price, C. J., & Taylor, N. S. (2002). Automated multiple failure FMEA. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 76(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Regazzoni, D., & Russo, D. (2011). TRIZ tools to enhance risk management. Procedia Engineering, 9, 40–51. Amsterdam: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Russo, D., & Birolini, V. (2011). Towards the right formulation of a technical problem. Procedia Engineering, 9, 77–91. Amsterdam : Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Russo, D., & Duci, S. (2015). How to exploit standard solutions in problem definition. Procedia Engineering, 31, 951–962. Amsterdam: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Russo, D., Birolini, V., & Ceresoli, R. (2016). FIT: A TRIZ based failure identification tool for product-service systems. Procedia CIRP, 47, 210–215. Amsterdam: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Spreafico, C., & Russo, D. (2016). TRIZ industrial case studies: A critical survey. Procedia CIRP, 39, 51–56. Amsterdam: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Xiao, N., Huang, H.-Z., Li, Y., He, L., & Jin, T. (2011). Multiple failure modes analysis and weighted risk priority number evaluation in FMEA. Engineering Failure Analysis, 18(4), 1162–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Xu, K., Tang, L., Xie, M., Ho, S., & Zhu, M. (2002). Fuzzy assessment of FMEA for engine systems. Reliability Enginerering System Safety, 75, 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Yang, C., Letourneau, S., Zaluski, M., & Scarlett, E. (2010, January). APU FMEA validation and its application to fault identification. Proceedings of ASME 2010 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference (pp. 959–967). Montreal: American Society of Mechanical Engineers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management, Information and Production EngineeringUniversity of BergamoBergamoItaly

Personalised recommendations